Employer Cannot Retrospectively Revoke Technical Resignation with Lien to Defeat Employee’s Right of Reversion

The Respondent was appointed as a Junior Stenographer at Jamalpur Workshop, Eastern Railway, on 31.08.2022

She tendered her "technical resignation" on 31.12.2022, requesting a lien on her original post for two years.

The Petitioners (Railway Authorities) accepted this resignation via letter dated 31.12.2022, explicitly stating her lien would be maintained for two years per DoPT guidelines

On 18.03.2024, the Respondent sought reversion to her parent cadre

The Petitioners rejected the request on 19.09.2024, claiming the earlier lien grant was "erroneous" as she was a probationer who had not completed two years of service

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, quashed this rejection and directed her restoration

1. Whether the maintenance of lien is permissible for a government servant who has not completed the mandatory two-year probation period

2. Whether an employer can retroactively withdraw a contractually and legally granted lien after the employee has acted upon it

Office Memorandum (OM) No. 28020/1/2010-Estt. (C) dated 17.08.2016 issued by the DoPT, specifically Paragraph 3.3(ii), which allows for the retention of lien in "exceptional cases" even if the servant is not confirmed

Paragraph 3.4.1 of the same OM, which mandates that a servant’s lien shall not be terminated if it leaves them without any lien on a permanent post

Principle from Union of India v. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 SCC 750 regarding the limits of correcting administrative errors

Doctrine against the colorable exercise of power

The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the Respondent’s status as a probationer strictly barred a lien. It noted that the DoPT OM dated 17.08.2016 expressly provides for lien retention in "exceptional cases" for unconfirmed employees joining other government departments

The Court reasoned that once the Petitioners issued the letter dated 31.12.2022 maintaining the lien, a "legitimate and enforceable right" was created

The subsequent attempt to "correct" this via the letter dated 19.09.2024—issued only after the Respondent sought reversion—was deemed a mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power

The Court emphasized that the authorities could not retrospectively declare their own decision illegal to defeat conferred rights, especially since they failed to offer the Respondent an option to return earlier if the lien was truly disputed

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT’s order, directing the Petitioners to restore the Respondent to her parent post of Junior Stenographer (Workshop) at Jamalpur within the stipulated period